Chris Matthews referred to birthers as crackers during his Hardball segment in reference to the political discourse, and warped partisan politics over the birthplace of President Barack Obama.

Â

As congress prepares to debate the health care bill proposed by the president and the Democratic party on Wednesday, more attacks continue ad hominem or towards the person instead of the merits of the bill.

Many political pundits like Chris Matthews, believe that enough is enough and the rhetoric about the president’s place of birth is a smokescreen to the health care bill that many Americans so desperately need.

“The ferocity of the attack by the right has been equaled by the ferocity from the right,” said Chris Matthews.Â Accordingly, it has come time for our congress and the so-called birthers, to debate the merits of the bill at hand.

It appears that the Republicans, Tea Party operatives, and their overt speeches from the right are meant to derail the intents and motives of the president, as if his platforms are not worthy of debate.

What is the impetus of the ongoing debate about the president’s place of birth?Â What are the driving forces behind the partisan agendas about whether or not President Barack Obama is fit to be our president?

Chris Matthews’ comments about birthers are crackers is intended to shed light on a lukewarm debate that is designed to go against the grain of our president, as if his race or place of birth makes him less than fit to govern.

The reality of the matter is that a very important measure is coming before congress on Wednesday regarding health care in this country.

With the new alignment, the bill will more than likeley garner House support, but will die in the Senate, due to the birther-Tea Party waged war on the president’s birth certificate.

Some may say that Chris Matthews should be sanctioned for his birthers areÂ crackers comments.

However,Â supporters of his commentsÂ may be using it as ammunition to expose the Tea Party-Republican tag-team effort to take backÂ America, but at who’s expense?